Welcome to MyPolitics-Forum.com, brought to you by the same folks who bring you MyMedia-Forum.com.Thanks for dropping by! Is the page too narrow for your preference? Once you register, you will be able to set it to your liking! You will need to register before you can post, so why not get it out of the way now? Enjoy! :)

we muslims believe in the messages that Moses and Jesus brought and you will find the 10 commandements in our Quran, not all in one list, but in parts here and there.. the same moral laws still apply.. what was good for the jews and christians from God are still valid for muslims.. God doesnt change his mind...

Belief in the scriptures revealed by God is the third article of Islamic faith.

We can identify four main reasons for the revelation of scriptures:

(1) The scripture revealed to a prophet is a point of reference to learn the religion and obligations towards God and fellow human beings. God reveals Himself and explains the purpose of human creation through revealed scriptures.

(2) By referring to it, 'disputes and differences between its followers in matter of religious belief and practice or in matters of social practice could be settled.

(3) The scriptures are meant to keep the religion safe from corruption and deterioration, at least for some time after the death of the prophet. At the present time, the Quran revealed to our Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, is the only scripture to remain safe from corruption.

(4) It is God’s proof against human beings. They are not allowed to oppose or overstep it.

A Muslim firmly believes that divinely revealed books were actually revealed by the Compassionate God to His prophets to guide mankind. The Quran is not the only spoken Word of God, but God also spoke to prophets before Prophet Muhammad.

"…and to Moses God spoke directly." (Quran 4:164)

God describes true believers are those who:

"…believe in what has been sent down to you (Muhammad) and what has been sent down before you…" (Quran 2:4)

The most important and central message of all scriptures was to worship God and God alone.

"And we sent never a prophet before you except that we revealed to him, saying, ‘there is no God but I, so worship Me.’" (Quran 21:25)

Islam is more inclusive in the holy revelations it affirms than any other heavenly religion in its present form.

Muslims uphold and respect the following scriptures:

(i) The Quran itself, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

(ii) The Torah (Tawrah in Arabic) revealed to the Prophet Moses (different from the Old Testament read today).

(iii) The Gospel (Injeel in Arabic) revealed to Prophet Jesus (different from the New Testament read in churches today).

(iv) The Psalms (Zaboor in Arabic) of David.

(v) The Scrolls (Suhuf in Arabic) of Moses and Abraham.

Third, Muslims believe whatever is true in them and has neither been altered or deliberately misconstrued.

Fourth, Islam affirms that God revealed the Quran as a witness over the previous scriptures and confirmation of them, because He says therein:

"And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (the Quran) in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it and trustworthy in highness and a witness over it (the collection of old scriptures)…" (Quran 5:48)

Meaning the Quran confirms whatever is true in previous scriptures and rejects whatever alterations and changes human hands have made to them.
Original Scriptures and the Bible

We must distinguish between two matters: the original Torah, Gospel, and Psalms and the present day Bible. The originals were God’s revelation, but the present day Bible does not have the exact original scripture.

No divine scripture exists today in the original language it was revealed in, except the Quran. The Bible was not revealed in English. Different books of today’s Bible are at best tertiary translations and different versions exist. These multiple translations were done by people whose knowledge, skill, or honesty is not known. As a result, some bibles are larger than others and have contradictions and internal inconsistencies! No originals exist. The Quran, on the other hand, is the only scripture in existence today in its original language and words. Not one letter of the Quran has been changed since its revelation. It is internally consistent with no contradictions. It is today as it was revealed 1400 years ago, transmitted by a rock-solid tradition of memorization and writing. Unlike other sacred texts, the entire Quran has been memorized by almost every Islamic scholar and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Muslims, generation after generation!

The previous scriptures essentially consist of:

(i) Stories of man’s creation and earlier nations, prophesies of what was to come like signs before the Judgment Day, appearance of new prophets, and other news.

The stories, prophecies, and news in the Bible read in churches and synagogues today are partly true and partly false. These books consist of some translated fragments of the original scripture revealed by God, words of some prophets, mixed with explanations of scholars, errors of scribes, and outright malicious insertions and deletions. Quran, the final and trustworthy scripture, helps us sort out fact from fiction. For a Muslim, it is the criterion to judge the truth from the falsehood in these stories. For example, the Bible still contains some clear passages pointing to God’s unity.[1] Also, some prophecies regarding the Prophet Muhammad are found in the Bible as well.[2] Yet, there are passages, even whole books, almost entirely recognized to be forgeries and the handiwork of men.[3]

(ii) Law and rulings, the allowed and prohibited, like the Law of Moses.

If we were to assume the law, that is the lawful and the prohibited, contained in the previous books did not suffer corruption, the Quran still abrogates those rulings, it cancels the old law which was suitable for its time and is no longer applicable today. For example, the old laws pertaining to diet, ritual prayer, fasting, inheritance, marriage and divorce have been cancelled (or, in many cases, reaffirmed) by the Islamic Law.
The Holy Quran

The Quran is different from other scriptures in the following respects:

(1) The Quran is miraculous and inimitable. Nothing similar to it can be produced by human beings.

(2) After the Quran, no more scriptures will be revealed by God. Just as the Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet, the Quran is the last scripture.

(3) God has taken it upon Himself to protect the Quran from alteration, to safeguard it from corruption, and to preserve it from distortion. On the other hand, previous scriptures suffered alteration and distortion and do not remain in their originally revealed form.

(4) The Quran, for one, confirms early scriptures and, for another, is a trustworthy witness over them.

Among the achievements of modern science is the “conquest” of space which has resulted in mans journey to the moon. The prediction of this event surely springs to mind when we read the chapter ar-Rahmaan in the Qur’an:
“O assembly of Jinns and men, if you can penetrate the regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them except with authority.”
Qur’an,55:33
Authority to travel in space can only come from the Creator of the laws which govern movement and space. The whole of this Qur’anic chapter invites humankind to recognize God’s beneficence.

At this point, we must ask ourselves the following question: How could an uneducated man in the middle of the desert accurately tackle so many and such varied subjects at a time when mythology and superstition reigned supreme? How could he so skillfully avoid every belief that was proven to be totally inaccurate many centuries later?

I've personally long suspected many of the texts of the Old and New Testaments, and furthermore wondered at length why so many of the writings of the apostle Paul to regional churches have become considered sacred canon. By specifying, "The Gospel (as revealed to Jesus)" and furthermore mentioning that what you hold as holy from this Gospel is "different from the New Testament read in churches today," you pique my curiosity.

The traditional Gospel consists of four or five books, depending on perspective. The stories attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and also some people consider the Book of Revelation (widely attributed to Saint John of Patmos, not to be confused with the Disciple John who wrote one of the abovementioned Gospels) to be a Book of Gospel as well.

I'd like to know which specific New Testament books are considered sacred canon by muslims, and also what Islam has to say about Jesus's purported claim to Godhood.

I hope you can understand those two questions. I know they took a little while to read, but i think they're fairly straightforward, and i'd really like straightforward answers if you're capable of delivering them. I have to frank with you about this, too: if you can't answer these two fairly simple questions with fairly simple answers that are understandable to a reasonably open-minded person, you're probably wasting your time posting here. That's not to be taken as a threat, btw, just a simple statement of fact.

\\\
I'd like to know which specific New Testament books are considered sacred canon by muslims,

Why such variance in viewpoints? To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible. One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture. Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity. This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]

Not one sentence? We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible? Hard to believe.
Maybe

The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3] Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars…. And some of these differences are significant.”[4] Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
A lot of manuscripts

A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another. Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5] In Bart D. Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
How did this happen?

None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8] The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry. But the originals? Lost. And the copies of the originals? Also lost. Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
No wonder they differ

In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise. However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands. During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9] Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud. Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.

In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10] Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11] As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12] More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13] And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]

Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16] In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19] Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]

In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
Forged books? In the Bible?

Why are we not surprised? After all, even the gospel authors are unknown. In fact, they’re anonymous.[23] Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24] Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]

So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels? Little or nothing, so far as we know. But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible. To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul. The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list. So only Matthew and John were true disciples. But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
Why?

Good question. John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
Umm … because he was dead?

Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26] [27] Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28] However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29] So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples

and also what Islam has to say about Jesus's purported claim to Godhood.

1. Bible Says that God is not Man
The Bible says:

Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man…”

Hosea 11:9 “...For I am God, and not man...”

Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible:

John 8:40 “…a man who has told you the truth…”

Acts 2:22 “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.”

Acts 17:31 “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed”

1. Tim. 2:5 “…the man Christ Jesus.”

God is not a man, but Jesus, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was a man, therefore, Jesus was not God.

2. The Bible Says that God Is Not a Son of Man

Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man...nor a son of man…”

The Bible often calls Jesus “a son of man” or “the son of man.”

Matthew 12:40 “…so will the son of man be…”

Matthew 16:27 “For the son of man is going to come…”

Matthew 28 “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.”

Mark 2:10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority…”

John 5:27 “…because He is the son of man.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25).

Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called “the son of man”, he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called “son of man” specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a “son of man” according to the Bible.

3. The Bible Says that Jesus Denied He is God

Luke 18:19 Jesus spoke to a man who had called him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, “Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

4. The Bible Says that God is Greater than Jesus

John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.”

John 10:29 “My father is greater than all.”

Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.

5. Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only

Luke 11:2 “When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.”

John 16:23 “In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.”

John 4:23 “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”

If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.

John 17:3 “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Jesus prayed to God all night:

Luke 6:12 “he continued all night in prayer to God.”

…because:

Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.

How did Jesus pray to God?

Matthew 26:39 ‘…he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father…”

Even Paul said:

Hebrews 5:7 “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.”

Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face with loud cries and petitions? Was it himself? Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ Jesus was praying to “the only true God.” Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God?

The Quran confirms that Jesus called for the worship of the Only True God:

I actually already knew almost all the stuff about about the NT books that you posted. Please note that i left ALL of Paul's letters out of the category of gospel. The standard answer is that the stories of Jesus as told by his disciples were kept in oral tradition for a generation or two before being recorded, and we stick to the assignations mostly for convenience's sake, not because it's widely believed that those men specifically wrote those books. In fact, the book Acts of the Apostles doesn't include anybody writing those stories down.

The idea that a few of Paul's letter are fakes is indeed nothing new. What is far more shocking and totally overlooked is the question of what happened to the stories told by the other 8 apostles, not to mention the Marys.

Although you made a great case for not taking the NT at face value, and i applaud you for it, it didn't exactly answer my wonder about what in the NT is held sacred by Islam.

But maybe you answered that more in your excellent answer to my second question.

The Prophets of the Old Testament such as Abraham, Noah and Jonah never preached that God is part of a Trinity, and did not believe in Jesus as their saviour. Their message was simple: there is one God and He alone deserves your worship. It doesn’t make sense that God sent Prophets for thousands of years with the same essential message, and then all of a sudden he says he is in a Trinity and that you must believe in Jesus to be saved.

The truth is that Jesus preached the same message that the Prophets in the Old Testament preached. There is a passage in the Bible which really emphasizes his core message. A man came to Jesus and asked “Which is the first commandment of all?”Jesus answered, “The first of all the commandments is Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’’[Mark 12:28-29]. So the greatest commandment, the most important belief according to Jesus is that God is one. If Jesus was God he would have said ‘I am God, worship me’, but he didn’t. He merely repeated a verse from the Old Testament confirming that God is One.

Some people claim that Jesus came to die for the sins of the world. But consider the following statement of Jesus: This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I have glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.[John 17:3-4]. Jesus said this before he was caught and taken to be crucified. It is clear from this verse that Jesus did not come to die for the sins of the world, as he finished the work God gave him before he was taken to be crucified.

Also Jesus said “salvation is of the Jews” [John 4:22]. So according to this we don’t need to believe in the Trinity or that Jesus died for our sins to attain salvation since the Jews don’t have these beliefs.
5. The Early Christians

Historically there were many sects in early Christianity who had a range of beliefs regarding Jesus[1]. Some believed Jesus was God, others believed Jesus was not God but partly divine, and yet others believed he was a human being and nothing more. Trinitarian Christianity which is the belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in three persons became the dominant sect of Christianity, once it was formalized as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century. Christians who denied Jesus being God were persecuted by the Roman Authorities[2]. From this point onwards the Trinitarian belief became widespread amongst Christians. There were various movements in early Christianity which denied the Trinity, among the more well known of them is Adoptionism and Arianism.

Dr Jerald Dirks who is an expert on early Christianity had this to say on the subject: Early Christianity was quite conflicted about the issue of the nature of Jesus. The various Adoptionist positions within early Christianity were numerous and at times dominate. One can even speculate that Arian and Nestorian Christianity might well be an extremely sizable source within Christianity today, if it were not for the fact that these two branches of Christianity, which were located primarily in the middle east and in North Africa were so similar to the Islamic teaching regarding the nature of Jesus that they quite naturally were absorbed into Islam at the beginning of the seventh century.”[3]

Since there were so many sects in early Christianity, each with different beliefs about Jesus and with their own versions of the Bible, which one can we say was following the true teachings of Jesus?

It doesn’t make sense that God sends countless Prophets like Noah, Abraham and Moses to tell people to believe in one God, and then suddenly sends a radically different message of the Trinity which contradicts his previous Prophets teachings. It is clear that the sect of Christianity who believed Jesus to be a human Prophet and nothing more, were following the true teachings of Jesus. This is because their concept of God is the same as that which was taught by the Prophets in the Old Testament.
Jesus in Islam

The Islamic belief about Jesus demystifies for us who the real Jesus was. Jesus in Islam was an extraordinary individual, chosen by God as a Prophet and sent to the Jewish people. He never preached that he himself was God or the actual son of God. He was miraculously born without a father, and he performed many amazing miracles such as healing the blind and the lepers and raising the dead – all by God’s permission. Muslims believe that Jesus will return before the day of Judgement to bring justice and peace to the world. This Islamic belief about Jesus is similar to the belief of some of the early Christians. In the Quran, God addresses the Christians about Jesus in the following way:

O People of the Book, do not commit excesses in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’– stop [this], that is better for you– God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. [4:171]

Islam is not just another religion. It is the same message preached by Moses, Jesus and Abraham. Islam literally means ‘submission to God’ and it teaches us to have a direct relationship with God. It reminds us that since God created us, no one should be worshipped except God alone. It also teaches that God is nothing like a human being or like anything that we can imagine. The concept of God is summarized in the Quran as:

“Say, He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He does not give birth, nor was He born, and there is nothing like Him.” (Quran 112:1-4)[4]

Becoming a Muslim is not turning your back to Jesus. Rather it’s going back to the original teachings of Jesus and obeying him.

I have difficulty with the idea you stated above that "Man is not like God." We are told by the most ancient Hebrew texts that God created man in His image.

The concept of the Trinity doesn't contradict the first commandment. It's analogous to Hindu deism, where one god may have many aspects.

My personal belief was that Jesus, in claiming divinity, was setting an example and calling on all of us to realize the spark of divinity in each of us and in each other - not claiming to be different from us, but rather trying to shift our perspective by setting that example. That's why he called himself Son of Man as well as Son of God. The implication being that we are all children of God, just as much as Jesus is/was. Of course, i'd have been tortured and murdered in the most horrific ways imaginable for expressing that idea during the Middle Ages. So never mind my own personal beliefs for now, they're ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

There are a large number of Christian sects and they're broadly and clumsily clumped into three different categories: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. However, Protestantism and Orthodoxy are each more sort of "umbrella" terms, as each group has widely variable beliefs and views, and several of them even have notably different Biblical Canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox church, for example, hold the ancient Book of Enoch as sacred scripture, and as far as i know, they're the only Christian faith to do so. The Holy Roman Catholic Church canonizes five books that no other church recognizes as sacred; those books are known as the Catholic Apocrypha. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more popularly known as Mormons, is nominally a Protestant sect, but they have their own book, the Book of Mormon, which no other Christian faith regards as anything other than heretical blasphemy. There are literally thousands of distinct Protestant religions, and the ideological schisms between them are sometimes as thin as thread and other times a gulf so wide that it's hard to believe that they're considered not only the same overall religion, but still inside one of the major divisions of that religion.

Judaism has several splinter groups as well, from Hasidic to Orthodox to Reformed, and i've been led to believe that there are many schisms inside those general groups.

What about Islam? Many people in the US know that Islam has a history of troubles between Sunni and Shi'ite, but we don't know what issues created those divisions. I've heard that one group believes in Emirs and one doesn't, but i don't know if that's true, or if there are other reasons for the ideological schisms. It seems unlikely that a religion as far-flung as Islam would have only two major components. I'm curious to know more about the different types of Islam - what they call themselves, what makes them different not just ideologically (though the ideological differences are what's most interesting to me at first) but in other ways as well. Islam has spread so widely that it's bound to have cultural variants as well as ideological variance.

Any enlightment you're willing to share on this topic would be welcome.

Son of God, son of David, or son of Man? Jesus is identified as “son of David” fourteen times in the New Testament, starting with the very first verse (Matthew 1:1). The Gospel of Luke documents forty-one generations between Jesus and David, while Matthew lists twenty-six. Jesus, a distant descendant, can only wear the “son of David” title metaphorically. But how then should we understand the title, “son of God?”

The “Trilemma,” a common proposal of Christian missionaries, states that “Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Son of God, as he claimed to be.” For the sake of argument, let’s agree that Jesus was neither a lunatic nor a liar. Let’s also agree he was precisely what he claimed to be. But what, exactly, was that? Jesus called himself “Son of Man” frequently, consistently, perhaps even emphatically, but where did he call himself “Son of God?”

Let’s back up. What does “Son of God” mean in the first place? No legitimate Christian sect suggests that God took a wife and had a child, and most certainly none conceive that God fathered a child through a human mother outside of marriage. Furthermore, to suggest that God physically mated with an element of His creation is so far beyond the limits of religious tolerance as to plummet down the sheer cliff of blasphemy, chasing the mythology of the Greeks.

With no rational explanation available within the tenets of Christian doctrine, the only avenue for closure is to claim yet one more doctrinal mystery. Here is where the Muslim recalls the question posed in the Quran:

“…How can He have a son when He has no consort?...” (Quran 6:101)

…while others shout, “But God can do anything!” The Islamic position, however, is that God doesn’t do inappropriate things, only Godly things. In the Islamic viewpoint, God’s character is integral with His being and consistent with His majesty.

So again, what does “Son of God” mean? And if Jesus Christ has exclusive rights to the term, why does the Bible record, “...for I (God) am a father to Israel, and Ephraim (i.e. Israel) is my firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9) and, “...Israel is My son, even my firstborn” (Exodus 4:22)? Taken in the context of Romans 8:14, which reads, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” many scholars conclude that “Son of God” is metaphorical and, as with christos, doesn’t imply exclusivity. After all, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion confirms that in Jewish idiom “Son of God” is clearly metaphorical. To quote, “Son of God, term occasionally found in Jewish literature, biblical and post-biblical, but nowhere implying physical descent from the Godhead.”[1] Hasting’s Bible Dictionary comments:

In Semitic usage “sonship” is a conception somewhat loosely employed to denote moral rather than physical or metaphysical relationship. Thus “sons of Belial” (Jg 19:22 etc.) are wicked men, not descendants of Belial; and in the NT the “children of the bridechamber” are wedding guests. So a “son of God” is a man, or even a people, who reflect the character of God. There is little evidence that the title was used in Jewish circles of the Messiah, and a sonship which implied more than a moral relationship would be contrary to Jewish monotheism.[2]

And in any case, the list of candidates for “son of God” begins with Adam, as per Luke 3:38: “...Adam, which was the son of God.”

Those who rebut by quoting Matthew 3:17 (“And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased’”) have overlooked the point that the Bible describes many people, Israel and Adam included, as “sons of God.” Both II Samuel 7:13-14 and I Chronicles 22:10 read, “He (Solomon) shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”

Entire nations are referred to as sons, or children of God. Examples include:

Genesis 6:2, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men…”

Genesis 6:4, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men…”

Deuteronomy 14:1, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God.”

Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD…”

Job 2:1, “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD…”

Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Philippians 2:15, “that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation…”

1 John 3:1-2, “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! … Beloved, now we are children of God…”

In Matthew 5:9 Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Later in Matthew 5:45, Jesus prescribed to his followers the attainment of noble attributes, “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” Not exclusively his Father, but their Father

There are several key verses which Christians use to prove the biblical origin of the Trinity. Upon analysis of these verses, one can clearly see that they do not prove the Trinity, but rather the same monotheistic message of God. One of the most frequently cited passages from the Bible is Isaiah 9:6-7, from which Christians conclude that the Messiah must be God incarnate. The passage states:

“or a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.”

That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible. Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially.

First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense. For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.” The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense. In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25. Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense!

Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.” This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event. Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history. A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says. The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son.

Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, “is” is understood. For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.” A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”. This name describes God, not the person who carries the name. The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body!

Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars. Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English. Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles.

Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime.

Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father! And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine.

Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus.

Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah. Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies. At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib. The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and killed 185,000 soldiers while they slept. When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was assassinated by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38). Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God. When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory. It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31. Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God. Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.